02 February 1954
Supreme Court
Download

RAJ RAJENDRA MALOJIRAO SHITOLE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT.RAJA BALBHADRA SINGHV.THE STATE

Bench: MAHAJAN, MEHAR CHAND (CJ),MUKHERJEA, B.K.,DAS, SUDHI RANJAN,BOSE, VIVIAN,HASAN, GHULAM
Case number: Appeal (civil) 4 of 1953


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: RAJ RAJENDRA MALOJIRAO SHITOLE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT.RAJA BALBHADRA SINGHV.THE STATE O

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/02/1954

BENCH: MAHAJAN, MEHAR CHAND (CJ) BENCH: MAHAJAN, MEHAR CHAND (CJ) MUKHERJEA, B.K. DAS, SUDHI RANJAN BOSE, VIVIAN HASAN, GHULAM

CITATION:  1954 AIR  259            1954 SCR  748  CITATOR INFO :  R          1955 SC 817  (16)

ACT:    Constitution  of  India, art. 385--Madhya Bharat Abolition  of  Jagirs  Act  (XXVIII of  1951)--Whether   void   as  not  passed by a validly constituted legislature.

HEADNOTE:   The   decision  of  the   Madhya  Bharat    High    Court declaring section  4  (1) (g) and  sub-cls. (iv) and (v) of cl.  4  of Schedule  I of Madhya Bharat  Abolition  of     Jagirs   Act (XXVIII  of  1951)  as illegal and  inoperative   was    not questioned by either  of  the parties.    It  was  however,  contended  that  the  impugned    Act (XXVIII  of  1951)   was void as it was not   passed   by  a validly  constituted legislature within  the meaning of  the covenant  entered into by the  Rulers  of Madhya Bharat   as the  provisions of cl. 1(c) of Schedule IV  of the  covenant for the election of 20 members were not complied with.    Held,  that as the Madhya Bharat  Legislative   Assembly actually functioning on the 26th January, 1950, the validity of the Acts  passed by it  could not  be  questioned in view of  art. 385 of the  Constitution irrespective  of the  fact whether  it  had  been proPerly  constituted  in  accordance with  the  terms  of the covenant or not Scope of articles 379, 382 and 385 discussed.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL    APPELLATE   JURISDICTION:   Civil  Appeals  Nos.  4 and 6 of 1953.     Appeals   under article  132(1)  of the Constitution  of India  from the judgment and Order dated the  4th  December, 1952, of the High Court of Judicature of the State of Madhya Bharat  at Gwalior in Civil Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 614  of 1951 and 1 of 1952.     P.R.  Das (B. Sen, with him)  for the appellant in  C.A.

2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

No. 4 of 1953. 749     Rameshwar Nath for the  appellant in C.A. No. 6 of 1953.     M.C. Setalvad, Attorney-General  for  India,  and K.  A. Chitale,  Advocate-General  of  Madhya  Bharat (Shiv  Dayal, with them)  for the respondent.     1954.  February  2.  The  Judgment  of  the  Court   was delivered by MAHAJAN C.J.--These appeals preferred on behalf    of  three zamindars  of   the   State of  Madhya  Bharat  against  the judgment of the High Court of Judicature of that State dated the   4th  December,  1952,  raise  common    constitutional questions   and  can be  disposed  of by one judgment.   The State  also  preferred cross appeals    against   the   same judgment.    During   the pendency  of these  appeals,   two petitions  under  article 32  of the Constitution  of  India were also made  to this court to obtain  the same  relief as was   claimed  by   the   appellants  in  their   respective appeals.  During  the course of the arguments,  the  counsel appearing  for the appellant  in Civil Appeal No. 5 of  1953 asked  leave to withdraw   the appeal.  This   was   granted and  the  appeal was   dismissed as having  been  withdrawn. Petitioner.  Nos.  116   and 117  of 1953   preferred  under article  3  were  also   withdrawn  and  were    accordingly dismissed.  Civil Appeals Nos. 4 and 6 of 1953  were  argued before us and this  judgment   concerns  them alone.     The  appellant in Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1953,   Rajendra Maloji  Rao Shitole, is the proprietor of  extensive  landed properties  in  the  State of Madhya Bharat  comprising  260 villages under  different Sanads granted to his ancestors by the  Rulers of Gwalior from time to time. It was alleged  by him that his income from these  properties was in  the   sum of  Rs.  2,61,637 and that the  State  of   Madhya   Bharat, under  purported exercise of its powers under section  3  of the  Madhya Bharat  Abolition of Jagirs  Act,  was about  to issue  a Notification for resumption of all his land.  By  a petition dated the  7th  December, 1951,  preferred  to  the High  Court  he asked for a mandamus to restrain  the  State from  issuing  any Notification under  section 3(1) of   the Act  in  respect  of  his properties  and  from 750 interfering with rights in the said property. The  appellant in  Civil  Appeal No. 6 of 1953 is another Jagirdar  of  the same  State.  He preferred a similar petition  to  the  High Court  praying  for the same relief.  These  two  petitions, along  with a number of other  petitions   preferred   under article  226  of the Constitution  challenging the  validity of the  Madhya Bharat Abolition  of Jagirs  Act  and praying for  the  issue of a mandamus restraining  the  State   from issuing   the  Notification under section 3(1)  of the  said Act,  were  heard by a Bench of three  Judges  of  the  High Court  of  Madhya  Bharat.   The  ,court,   by  a   majority judgment,  declared that  the  Madhya  Bharat  Abolition  of Jagirs  Act  No.  XXVIII of  1951  was   valid   except   as regards   section 4(1)(g) and  sub-clauses (iv) and  (v)  of clause  4  of  Schedule   I  which  were  held  illegal  and inoperative.   A writ of mandamus was directed to be  issued to  the State Government directing it not to give effect  to the  procisions  of the  impugned  Act stated above.   Leave to  appeal  to the Supreme Court was granted to  the  paries and  in  pursuance  of  the  leave the  appellants  referred the appeal above mentioned and  the State referred  the  two cross  appeals.  The  cross  appeals were not pressed by the learned  Attorney-General and nothing  more need   be   said about  them.  They  are therefore dismissed with costs.

3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

   As  regards  Civil Appeals . Nos. 4 and 6 of  1953,  the facts  are:  That in April, 1948, after  the   partition  of India,  and  the  formation  of  two  Dominions,  India  and Pakistan,   the  Rulers  of the States  of  Gwalior,  Indore and   certain   other  States   in   Central   India   being convinced  that  the welfare of the people  of  that  region could best be  secured by the establishment of a State comprising   the     territories   of’  their     respective States  with  a  common       Executive,   Legislature   and Judiciary   entered    into    an    agreement    for    the formation  of a United State of Gwalior,  Indore  and  Malwa (Madhya Bharat).  It was  resolved by them  to entrust to  a Constituent      Assembly      consisting     of     elected representatives   of  the   people  the  drawing  up  of   a democratic  Constitution for the State within the  framework of the Constitution of  India to which the  Rulers  of these 751 States  had  acceded. The  covenant entered  into  by  these Rulers  was published on the 7th October, 1948.  The  Rulers agreed,  under  article  III  of the covenant,  to  elect  a Rajpramukh  of  the United State, and by  article   VI   the Ruler   of   each  Covenanting   State agreed to  make  over the administration of the State to the  Rajpramukh not later than  the  first day of July, 1948, and it was  agreed  that thereupon   all   rights,   authority    and    jurisdiction belonging to  the  Ruler which appertain, or are  incidental to,  the Government of the Covenanting States shall vest  in the  United  State  and were thereafter  to  be  exercisable only  as provided by the covenant or by the Constitution  to be  framed  thereunder.  By  article  X it was  agreed  that as  soon  as  practicable a Constituent  Assembly,  for  the purpose  of  framing  a Constitution for  the  United  State within the framework  of the  covenant and the  Constitution of  India,   was to be formed and  clause (2)  of  the  said article provided:     "The   Rajpramukh  shall constitute not later  than  the first  day of August, 1948, an interim Legislative  Assembly for  the  United State in the manner indicated  in  Schedule IV."     Schedule   IV laid down the following procedure for  the constitution of the Legislative Assembly: "1. The Legislative Assembly shall consist of--      (a)  forty  members  elected  by  the members   of  the Gwalior Legislative Assembly;     (b)  fifteen   members  elected by the  members  of  the Indore Legislative Assembly; and     (c)  twenty members elected  by  an   electoral  college to  be  constituted by the Rajpramukh in  consultation  with the   Government of  India  to represent Covenanting  States other than Gwalior and Indore.     2. The election shall be by proportional  representation by means of the single transferable vote.     3.  The  Rajpramukh  may make rules  for  carrying  into effect   the   foregoing  provisions of  this  Schedule  and securing   the due constitution of the interim   Legislative Assembly." 752     In  pursuance  of this covenant the Rajpramukh took  the oath  of office on the 28th  of May,  1948.  In the meantime 40  members representing the  Indore  group were elected  to the  interim  legislative-assembly on the 8th  and  9th   of May,   1948,  respectively.  As  regards the election of  20 members  that had to be elected  by an  electoral   college, what    happened   was   this.   The  Ministry  of   States, Government  of India, on the 5th July,  1948,  informed  the

4

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

Rajpramukh  that there were many practical  difficulties  in setting   up an  electoral college  consisting  of   elected representatives  of  the various  States,  because  in  many of  the smaller States there were no elected bodies  of  any kind.  After  considering the various  difficulties  it  was suggested   to the Rajpramukh that the twenty seats  may  be allocated between the different States in  a certain  manner mentioned in the latter  and out of these,  fourteen  may be allotted   to  the nominees  of the  Praja  Mandal  and  the remaining  six may be nominated by the  Rajpramukh  himself. This  suggestion  was modified  by a letter  of the 19th  of November,  1948,  and it was finally agreed upon  that   the Madhya   Bharat   Provincial  Congress Committee    may   be asked   to   elect  six persons ’to represent  the   smaller States  in the  Madhya  Bharat interim legislative assembly. This  suggestion was not exactly  in accord  with what   had been  indicated  in clause  1 (c)  of  Schedule  IV.   These representatives were elected in the manner suggested in  the two  letters,  on the 19th  October, 1948,   and  they  were declared to be validly elected in terms of the covenant.     On the 30th of October, 1948, the Rajpramukh promulgated an    Ordinance    entitled    "The    Interim   Legislative Assembly     Ordinance   Samvat    2005", Ordinance  No.  18 of   1948.   In   the  preamble  to  the  Ordinance  it  was declared  that  in accordance with the provisions   of   the covenant   the  legislative  assembly had    already    been duly constituted.   The  various sections  of the  Ordinance provided   for  the  working of  the   interim   legislative assembly,  i.e., the  manner in which it could be   summoned and  dissolved  or  prorogued, how its President and  Deputy President  were to be elected and how it  was  to   exercise the  power  of 753 voting   and  what number of members  would  constitute  the quorum.   On    the   6th    of  December,      1948,    the Ordinance  was  repealed  and  Act  XXIII of      1949  took its  place.  The  legislative   assembly  thus   constituted was  actually   functioning on the 26th  of  January,  1950, when  the  Constitution of India: came into force.   In  the meantime,   by  subsequent  covenants,  the  Rulers  of  the Covenanting  States  had agreed to accept  the  Constitution of  India as the Constitution of the United State of  Madhya Bharat   and  had abandoned  their  covenant  of  forming  a separate   Constituent Assembly for framing  a  Constitution for    the   United   State   of   Madhya   Bharat.    After the coming into force  of  the  Constitution  of  India  the interim     legislative    assembly  constituted   by    the Rajpramukh   and   which  was functioning on  the  26th   of January,   1950,  continued to function till  some  time  in the  year   1952   when new elections  took   place   and  a legislative  assembly   in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution of India was duly constituted.     On  the  30th of November, 1949, the Government  of  the State  of  Madhya  Bharat introduced a  Bill   entitled  the "Madhya  Bharat   Abolition  of  Jagirs  Bill’   before  the interim   legislative  assembly  and  the  Bill  was  passed into  an Act on the 28th of August, 1951, and  having   been reserved     for   the   consideration   of   the  President received   his  assent  on the 27th November, 1951.  It  was published    in the Madhya Bharat Gazette  Extraordinary  on the  7th  of December,  1951. The said Act,  by  section  3, provided  for  a date to-be appointed by the  Government  by notification for resumption of all jagir lands in the- State and by section 4 it provided that as from  such a date,  the right,  title  and interest of every jagirdar  and of  every

5

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

other  person   claiming  through him  in  his  jagir  lands including forests, trees, fisheries,  wells,  tanks,  ponds, water-channels,   ferries,  pathways,  village-sites,  huts, bazaars  and  mela grounds and mines and  minerals   whether being  worked  or not, ’shall stand resumed  to  the   State free  from  all encumbrances.  The Act   also   provided   a scheme  for  assessment of compensation     m   respect   of jagirs  thus resumed. 754       The appellants contested the validity of this law on a number of grounds,     and,  inter  alia,  on  the following :--   (1)  That  the   so-called  legislature which  passed  the Act  was  not  a  legislature  within  the  meaning  of  the covenant  entered   into by  the Rulers of  Gwalior,  Indore and   certain   other   States  in  Central  India  for  the formation   of  the United  State of  Gwalior,   Indore  and Malwa  (Madhya Bharat) or_within the meaning of Schedule  IV of  the  said  covenant.   (2)  That  the  legislature  of  Madhya  Bharat  was,  not competent  to  enact  the  said Act and the said acquisition or  resumption of jagirs was not for a public.  purpose  and there  was  no  provision for  payment  of  compensation  as understood  in  law,  the compensation  provided  for  being wholly   illusory    and  the  Act  was  a  fraud   on   the Constitution.     Before  the  High Court, Mr. P.R. Das who  appeared  for most  of the petitioners,  confined his arguments  some   of the   grounds   mentioned   in clause  (2)above.  His  first contention that the impugned Act was passed by a legislature not  validly  constituted,  he  reserved for arguing  before this   court  as  the  Madhya Bharat High Court  by  a  Full Bench  decision  in Shree Ram Dubey v. The State  of  Madhya Bharat(1),  had already repelled  that contention. The   two points argued  by him before the High Court were:     (1)  That   there  was no public   purpose   behind  the acquisition   for   the  resumption  of  jagir   lands   and therefore the Act was unconstitutional and illegal.     (2) That some of the provisions of the impugned Act were ultra  vires  in so far as they constituted a fraud  on  the Constitution.   Both   these    points   which,  were  urged before  the  High  Court were not argued before  us  by  the learned  counsel.  The  point  that  there  was   no  public purpose  behind  the  acquisition  was abandoned because  it was  concluded by the decision of this court in  the  Orissa Zamindari  appeals, K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo and Others  v. The State of Orissa(2). A.I.R. 1952 M.B. 57-178. A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 375; [1954] S.C.R. 1. 755 As  regards   the  second  point,  as   already   indicated, three provisions of the impugned Act had been declared  void by  the  High   Court  and  Mr.  Das  contented  himself  by accepting    that  decision.   The  ’State  Government   had impugned  the correctness of the decision of the High  Court declaring  these three  provisions of the Act to be void but it  also  did not press that point. The  result   of   these concessions   in  this  court is that the arguments  in  the two appeals were limited to the first point  urged  in   the petition,  namely,   whether  the impugned Act was passed by a  Legislature not validly constituted  under the   covenant entered into by  the Rulers of Madhya Bharat.     Mr.  P.R. Das contended that as the Interim  Legislative Assembly   was not constituted according to  the  provisions of  Schedule IV of the covenant it was a body   of  usurpers

6

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

and  therefore  any laws made by it were wholly void and  of no  effect whatsoever.  It was urged  that the  two  bodies, viz.  Praja Mandal and the Provincial   Congress   Committee who,  in  two  separate divisions, elected  fourteen and six members, did not constitute’ an electoral  college to fulfil the  requirement  of clause 1 (c) of Schedule  IV,  and  the members  elected could not be  said to have been elected  in the  manner  prescribed   by the  Schedule   and  that   the Rajpramukh and the Government of India, in the absence of an amending  covenant,  had no power  to vary the provisions of the  Schedule.  It  was said that the  object  of clause   1 (c)  of  Schedule  IV was  that the election of  20  members should  be  by  an  electoral  college  constituted  by  the Rajpramukh in consultation with the Government  of India  to represent   the  Covenanting  States other than Gwalior  and Indore  and  that the election by the Praja Mandal  and  the Congress  Committee of 14 and 6 members was in clear  breach of  the  terms of the covenant and that in  this  manner  no representation  was given to the minorities and full  effect was  not given to the rule that the election  should  be  by proportional representation by means of single  transferable vote. The learned Attorney-General met these contentions  by urging,  (1) that the question  was not open  having  regard to the provisions   of article 385 of  the Constitution   of India 756 (2)  that  the  election  of  20  members  representing  the eighteen  States  took place in literal  compliance  of  the covenant,   (3)  that in any event  there  was   substantial compliance  with  the  covenant, and  lastly  (4)  that  the declarations made in the  Ordinance  by  the  Rajpramukh and the  provisions contained in the Ordinance were   conclusive and were accepted  by all the States  concerned and could no longer be challenged.     After   a  careful  consideration  of   the   respective arguments   addressed  by  Mr.  P.R. Das  and   the  learned Attorney-General   we have  reached  the conclusion that  it is  not  necessary to consider  in  detail all   the  points discussed  by  the learned counsel, as in our  judgment  the question seems to be concluded by the provisions of  article 385 of the Constitution of India. There is no gainsaying the fact  that the election of 20 members to   represent the  18 States  was not made strictly in the    manner indicated  in Schedule  IV  of  the covenant,  but    it  also  cannot  be disputed,   and in fact was not disputed  before  the   High Court,   that   the  Legislative Assembly which  passed  the impugned  Act was on the 26th of January, 1950, in spite  of its  defective  constitution,  in fact  functioning as   the Legislature  of the State  of  Madhya  Bharat. It had   been declared  to  have   come  into  existence by  an  Ordinance promulgated  by the  Rajpramukh and its factual existence is apparent  from  the  laws that it  made  subsequent  to  its formation.     Part  XXI  of  the  Constitution  of  India  deals  with "Temporary   and Transitional Provisions". About  two  dozen articles  in this Part concern themselves with the  solution of the problems of their interval in between the repeal   of the  Government  of India Act and the coming into  being  of bodies  and authorities formed by the  Constitution.   Until the   House   or   Houses  of  Legislature  or  bodies   and authorities formed by  the Constitution could be duly formed it was necessary to say with  certain  definiteness  as   to what  bodies  or authorities  would  exercise  and   perform the   duties  conferred by the different provisions  of  the Constitution   in the  meantime.  When a  silent  revolution

7

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

was taking  place   and   Princely   kingdoms   were  fast 757 disappearing  and a new democratic  Constitution  was  being set  up  and  a provision had to be made  for  the  interval between    the   switch-over   from  one   Constitution   to another,   there  was   hardly   any  time  to  enquire  and consider  whether  the bodies or authorities   or  House  or Houses  of  Legislature formed under the  old  Constitutions which  were  being  scrapped   had  been  formed  in  strict compliance  with the provisions of those  Constitutions   or whether  there  were  any  defects in their formation.   The Constitution-makers    therefore   took notice   of    their factual   existence  and gave them  recognition   under  the Constitution  and  invested  the bodies that  were  actually functioning  as  such, whether  regularly   or  irregularly, with  the  authority to exercise the powers  and perform the duties     conferred    by    the   provisions    of     the Constitution.   That   is  clearly  the scheme  of  all  the articles  mentioned  in  Part  XXI  of  the    Constitution. Particular  reference  may  be made to articles 379, 382 and to article 385 which specifically governs the present  case. Article 379 is in these terms:     "(1)  Until both Houses of Parliament  have   been  duly constituted and summoned to meet for the first session under the    provisions    of  this    Constitution,    the   body functioning as  the  Constituent Assembly of the Dominion of India   immediately  before  the  commencement    of    this Constitution   shall   be  the  provisional  Parliament  and shall  exercise  all the powers and perform all  the  duties conferred   by  the  provisions  of  this  Constitution   on Parliament.       Explanation.--For   the  purposes  of   this   clause. the   Constituent   Assembly  of  the  Dominion   of   India includes-- (i)  the  members  chosen to represent any  State  or  other territory   for  which  representation  is   provided  under clause (2), and (ii) the members chosen to fill casual vacancies in the said Assembly." The  provision made in this article in    unambiguous  terms makes    the   body.  functioning   as    the    Constituent Assembly,  whether   constituted   perfectly   or 758 imperfectly   and  whatever  its  membership   on  the  date immediately before the commencement of the Constitution,  as the   provisional   Parliament and  vests it  with  all  the functions   and duties  conferred  by  the   provisions   of the   Constitution   on the  Parliament. The  President  was given  power  under the provisions of this  article  to  add members   to  this body to give  representation  to  certain States  who  were  not   previously represented, and it  was specifically  prescribed that   if there are  any  vacancies then the vacancies   could  be filled  up  and  the  members returned   to  fill  these vacancies  will   be   considered members  of   the  provisional  Parliament.  These  specific provisions   are  indicative   of   the   fact   that    the Constitution-makers,   in  enacting   this   article,   took notice  of the factual  existence of certain bodies  without concerning  themselves  with  the  question   whether   they had   been  validly constituted under the Constitution  that brought them into being. Article 382 of the  Constitution is similarly worded. It provides that until the House or Houses of  the Legislature  of each State  specified in Part  A  of the  First  Schedule  has or have been duly constituted  and summoned to meet for the first session under the  provisions

8

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

of  this   Constitution,   the  House  or   Houses  of   the Legislature   of  the   corresponding  Province  functioning immediately   before the  commencement of this  Constitution shall exercise the powers and perform the duties   conferred by  the provisions  of  this  Constitution on the  House  or Houses  of the Legislature of such State. Article 385 is  in exact conformity with the two earlier articles.  It provides that-      "Until  the  House or Houses of the  Legislature  of  a State specified in Part B of the First Schedule has or  have been  duly  constituted and summoned to meet for  the  first session under the provisions of this Constitution, the  body or authority functioning immediately before the commencement of   this   Constitution  as  the   Legislature    of    the corresponding  Indian  State  shall exercise the powers  and perform  the  duties  conferred by the  provisions  of  this Constitution  on the House or Houses of the  Legislature  of the State so specified." 759       The whole intent and purpose of these articles was  to give   recognition   to  those  bodies  or  authorities   or House   or   Houses   of Legislature   which  were  actually functioning  before  the  26th of January,  1950,   and   to invest them with the powers conferred by the provisions   of this   Constitution.    The  Constitution-makers  wanted  to indicate  the  arrangements  made  by  them for the interval with  certain amount of definiteness in order to  avoid  any disputes  during  the interim period as to who the  body  or authority  was,  to  exercise the powers  conferred  by  the provisions  of  the Constitution. They therefore  chose  the formula that whichever body or authority or House or  Houses of   Legislature  was  actually   functioning    immediately before  the   commencement of the Constitution would be  the body  or  authority or the House that  would  exercise   the powers and perform  the duties  conferred by the  provisions of  this  Constitution  on  the  House,  body or   authority specified   in the  Constitution.  They did  not  take   any risk  on this  question and the bodies actually  functioning were,   like  persona  designata,   invested  with    powers conferred by the Constitution. That being the scheme of this Part and that being also the clear and unambiguous  language of article 385  it follows that the Madhya  Bharat . Interim Legislative   Assembly  that was  actually  functioning   on the  26h  January, 1950, was invested by the Constitution of India  with  powers   conferred by the  provisions   of  the Constitution,   irrespective   of   the   fact   whether  it had   been   properly   constituted   in   accordance   with the   terms  of  the covenant or not. The inquiry into  this question thus became  barred  by adopting  this   procedure. Such  a  procedure  was fully  justified   and  was  rounded upon   considerations  of  policy  and  necessity  for,  the protection  of the public  and individuals  whose  interests may  be  affected  thereby.  It  is  manifest  that  endless confusion  would have resulted if the Constitution  had  not adopted that formula and had not barred an inquiry into  all questions  as to the original  formation of such bodies   by giving  validity  and   recognition   to   those  bodies  or authorities  as were actually functioning on the   26th   of January,  1950.  Not only  did it  give 760 validity and recognition to those bodies which were in  fact functioning.  then  but it also  invested  these  designated bodies   and  authorities   with powers   conferred  by  the provisions  of the Constitution itself. That being our  view as to the true meaning and ’intent of the language  employed

9

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

in  article  385  of the Constitution it  follows  that  the contention  raised  by  Mr. P.R. Das  as  to  the  defective formation  of the Interim Legislative  Assembly  of   Madhya Bharat  has  no  validity. Even if that body was not  formed in  strict compliance with  the  provisions   indicated   in Schedule  IV of the covenant its  defective formation   does not   affect  the constitutionality    of    the    impugned statute.   The impugned statute was passed in the year  1951 after  the Constitution of India had given  recognition  to, and  conferred powers on, the Assembly under article 385  of the  Constitution.  When it made this law it was  exercising its powers under the Constitution of India and not under the covenant  which  brought it into existence.    The    result therefore  is  that  the  only contention that Mr. P.R.  Das argued  before  us cannot be sustained and it must  be  held that it is not well founded.     For the reasons given above we see no force in these two appeals  and   they  are  therefore  dismissed  with costs.                     Appeals   dismissed.  Agent for the  appellant in C.A. No. 4: 1. N. Shroff. Agent for the appellant in C.A. No. 6 :Rajinder Narain. Agent for the respondent: R.H. 761